Friday, March 23, 2012

The only thing I can imagine is that you think to behave politically is to behave personally. But when I vote for or against something, or even abstain from any political involvement, I’m not behaving personally morally but politically (or apolitically as the case may be). This is the part where you conflate morality and politics, but do you really think that when I vote against a candidate I am behaving personally or morally against him in the same way I act against a man when I steal his money? On that reasoning there is no way to tell someone who I vote against it was nothing personal but a principled disagreement--everything is personal, which might explain you taking 2k push back so personally.

These sentiments seem to fit well with Frame's point 10 ("The Christian has no biblical mandate to seek changes in the social, cultural, or political order.") but what other way can one make sense of them. It really looks like Zrim is saying that politics is not behavior that is governed by morality. This would provide the explanation for point 10, but how can it possibly be justified? Surely there are matters of indifference in politics, as in any area of life, but politics tends to run into a lot more moral issues than something like plumbing (to pick an E2k favorite). Plumbing can run into moral issues: if someone asks you to tap into their neighbor's water pipe, for example, a godly plumber would decline. Yet, Politics runs into moral issues constantly. And it is because of the moral ramifications that one cannot affirm that Christians lack the law, which mandates that they, when it is in their power, seek to change the social, cultural, or even political order.

8 comments:

That portion about the plumber reminded me of the many times I went to New York City and down by the Hudson at the water front driving along parallel to it you see all these shanties where they have run a line up to the power lines drawing all the electricity they need to watch their t.v. or listen to their radio or light up their space at night. I always think, maybe there are more pressing issues with law enforcement than enforcing "thou shalt not steal"? :)

But, it does take a stretch to swallow Zrim, here, then and now!

What is the persuasion then for people to enter into politics these days? I suppose the great motivation might be money in light of this solution found in Ecclesiastes, here:

Ecc_5:10 He who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves wealth with his income; this also is vanity.

Ecc_7:12 For the protection of wisdom is like the protection of money, and the advantage of knowledge is that wisdom preserves the life of him who has it.

Ecc_10:19 Bread is made for laughter, and wine gladdens life, and money answers everything.

It is being bandied about that the current President is amassing a political war chest worth a billion dollars so that he can run the executive branch of the United States' government and be paid a mere half a million dollars a year to do so.

Among the commonest objections to the two kingdoms doctrine does seem to be that it promotes indifference to the broader life of society or treats the world outside the church as somehow autonomous or morally neutral. I can only say emphatically that that is a false charge and misrepresentation. That is simply not what two kingdoms theology meant historically and certainly not what I mean by it. The common kingdom is God’s kingdom: he rules it, his law governs it, and the whole world is accountable to him. Christians are to participate in it, and should recognize that their various vocations in it are avenues for love and service to their neighbor. As Luther wonderfully explained, God is ultimately the one who feeds, houses, and clothes people, but he ordinarily does so through farmers, carpenters, and weavers. So I believe the two kingdoms doctrine provides a warm and biblical ground for explaining why Christians can pursue all lawful human vocations and both glorify God and love their neighbor through them. And it does so, as you say, through protecting the church’s unique witness. When the farmer does his work well he is God’s instrument for feeding human beings made in the image of God. But that is a different task from the church’s work of ministering the word of God and thus proclaiming the work of Christ for everlasting life in the new creation. When the church tries to do everything (even those tasks which God has entrusted to other institutions), it inevitably seems to get distracted from doing what Christ actually commanded the church to do.

But Scripture does not set forth a political policy agenda or embrace a particular political party, and so the church ought to be silent here where it has no authorization from Christ to speak. When it comes to supporting a particular party, or candidate, or platform, or strategy—individual believers have the liberty to utilize the wisdom God gives them to make decisions they believe will be of most good to society at large. Politics constantly demands compromise, choosing between the lesser of evils, and refusing to let the better be the enemy of the good. Christians will make different judgments about these things, and the church shouldn’t try to step in and bind believers’ consciences on matters of prudence. It might be helpful to think of it this way: during times when Christians are bombarded with political advertisements, slogans, and billboards, how refreshing it should be, on the Lord’s Day, to step out of that obsession with politics and gather with God’s redeemed people to celebrate their heavenly citizenship and their bond in Christ that transcends all national, ethnic, and political divisions.

Tfan, the point isn’t that morality and politics don’t intersect. The point is that morality doesn’t swallow up politics. The only way I can conceive of the act of voting or otherwise behaving politically to be the same as behaving personally and morally is to begin with an over-realized notion of politics in the first place. What is needed is a more restrained and proximate view of what politics can accomplish. There seems to me a significant difference between what Christian Jane does with that unwanted pregnancy of hers and what she does in the voting booth. Liberty in the latter case, no liberty in the former.

It is unclear to me where the Christian has biblical mandate to transform the world. He is certainly free to indulge the naïve notion that he can. But if the Bible really does bind believers to transform the world then by Frame’s logic those who choose to merely participate instead of transform must be impious. But it is clear to me that the Christian has biblical mandate to live an obedient, quiet and peaceable life in the land of his pilgrimage.

Phil, thanks, but I am familiar with the first and greatest commandment. But where does the Bible tell me what sorts of tools I should use to fix my pipes? For that matter, what sorts of legislation I should affirm or oppose to make the polis go?

"The only way I can conceive of the act of voting or otherwise behaving politically to be the same as behaving personally and morally is to begin with an over-realized notion of politics in the first place."

How about simply by viewing all actions as having moral ramifications and implications?

"What is needed is a more restrained and proximate view of what politics can accomplish."

That may be needed. I wasn't objecting to that idea.

"There seems to me a significant difference between what Christian Jane does with that unwanted pregnancy of hers and what she does in the voting booth. Liberty in the latter case, no liberty in the former."

There's a certain amount of liberty in each case. She can keep the child or give the child up for adoption, but she cannot intentionally kill . She can vote for some referenda, but not for others.

"It is unclear to me where the Christian has biblical mandate to transform the world. He is certainly free to indulge the naïve notion that he can. But if the Bible really does bind believers to transform the world then by Frame’s logic those who choose to merely participate instead of transform must be impious. But it is clear to me that the Christian has biblical mandate to live an obedient, quiet and peaceable life in the land of his pilgrimage."

Christians do have a mandate not to be conformed to the world, agreed?

Copyright Notice - (C) 2006-2011 TurretinFan

This blog tries to comply with international standards of "fair use" and "fair dealing" in its use of copied material. If you feel that a use of your material is "unfair" contact the blog owner: contact information is available on the blog owner's profile.Contrariwise, those same international standards permit you to make "fair use" and "fair dealing" with the material presented here.More